Latest updates
- A judgment dealing with the wife’s application for financial relief following a divorce. The husband started a plant hire business shortly after their relationship began. HHJ Booth's decision was that all properties in their joint names should be transferred to the husband, other than a house occupied by the wife's mother. The husband would continue to provide support for the wife until he paid her, three months hence, £2.3 million. She would then be paid £1m more after 15 months and another £1m after 27 months. The pension would be shared equally. The husband's suggestion (after circulation of the draft judgment) that this might lead to liquidation of the business did not change HHJ Booth's decision: he had presented his case as if there were no possibility of the wife receiving more than he was prepared to offer, "a bold strategy that failed". He would have to bear the consequences of running his case this way. Judgment, 28/01/2020, free
- An application to set aside a final financial remedies order for the second time on the grounds of material non-disclosure. Holman J concluded that the husband's evidence on the crucial issue had been evasive and untrue, and that he had deliberately withheld disclosure, not only from the wife and the court, but also from his own legal team. The wife was entitled to re-open the case. The previous order was set aside and there would be a fresh determination of the wife's claims for financial remedies. Holman J urged the parties to enter serious negotiations and find an early basis for settlement. Judgment, 22/01/2020, free
- Claims for financial remedies after divorce. Everything that the parties now possessed had been built up during the course of the marriage, including a successful mobile telephone business. The litigation had been highly destructive and the husband had been largely responsible for that situation. The only way that Cohen J could be confident that the wife and children would be properly provided for was for the beneficial interest in the business to be transferred to the wife. Properties in London and Miami were divided between them. Judgment, 23/12/2019, free
- The husband had been ordered to pay the former wife a lump sum of £20m in full and final settlement of her claims. Eleven years later, not a penny had been paid. A without notice order had been made appointing receivers of shares in a Spanish company, of which the husband had been found to be the beneficial owner. This receivership order was set aside following an application by other parties, and the wife now appealed against the set-aside order. Baker LJ decided that the judge had been wrong to set it aside on the mere assertion by the other parties that they were the owners of relevant shares. A third party could not expect to receive the protection of the court if it wasn't prepared for the rights it claimed to be scrutinised. Arguments on limitation, jurisdiction and estoppel also failed. Moylan LJ and Longmore LJ agreed, and the receivership order was restored, the latter adding that the application to set aside the receivership order had been misconceived from the start. Judgment, 23/12/2019, free
- After some delay, the husband sought a stay of a periodical payments order, arguing that the judge had fallen into error in treating his future earning capacity as a matrimonial asset which could be shared. In circumstances where there was no final version of the judgment, nor a sealed order, Francis J held that it was unfair to hold the relevant time limits against the husband. He agreed that the judge had been plainly wrong, and reduced the annual payments from £150,000 to £68,000. This hearing had been listed for only a day, causing further delay, and he stressed that there is a general duty on counsel and solicitors to inform the court if a time estimate is plainly incorrect. Judgment, 22/07/2019, free
Latest know-how
- In a tweet: No need to vent your spleen in a witness statement. Case note, 02/11/2019, members only
- In a tweet: Consideration of “substantial” in leave for Part II MFPA 1984 proceedings. Case note, 18/10/2019, members only
- A case summary of Vasilyeva v Shemyakin [2019] EWHC 932 (Fam), by a Pupil at 1 Hare Court. Case note, 10/05/2019, members only
- In a tweet: Unequal sharing thanks to special contribution Case note, 06/08/2018, members only
- In a tweet: Corporate veil pierced after H conceals assets in various off-shore corporate entities Case note, 15/05/2018, members only
Latest training
- Mena Ruparel and Mark Penston unpick the complex task of understanding the different types of remuneration that might crop up in financial remedy proceedings. Webcast, 19/04/2018, members only
- Recording of live webinar first broadcast 7 December 2016 Webcast, 09/12/2016, members only
- In this webcast, which was recorded in June 2016, Helen Williams from 29 Bedford Row discusses what to do when there is a business involved in the divorce. Webcast, 15/09/2016, members only
- Recording of webinar first broadcast 7 July 2016. Webcast, 08/07/2016, members only
- Webinar broadcast on 21 January 2014 presented by Amber Sheridan and Petra Teacher of 29 Bedford Row Webcast, 21/01/2014, registration required